“I oppose this rule. House Republicans are wasting time on political games instead of helping families with high living costs. Their plan attaches a bad voting bill to foreign policy funding, and the Senate will simply remove it. They are also bringing up bills that cut diplomacy, stop tracking suspicious gun sales, and pay for veterans' benefits by cutting disability pay for other veterans.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to all my friends on the other side who have held this floor hostage for weeks on end, let me save them the suspense: Nothing changes with this rule. There is nothing in this rule that forces the Senate to take up the awful SAVE America Act. Nothing. The majority is simply attaching the SAVE America Act on to an unrelated State Department funding bill and sending it across the Capitol. The Senate can and will strip it right back out. Everybody here knows that. The fact of the matter is that the SAVE Act is never going to become law because even Republicans know it is a disaster that will make it more difficult, if not impossible, for American citizens to vote. What Republicans are doing here with this procedural move is not some master strategy. It is merely political theater, designed to settle another Republican family feud. If that is enough to flip Members who have held up business for weeks, boy, they are cheap dates. What this rule does is bring to the floor four bills. The first would make daylight saving time permanent. Look, everybody has an opinion about changing the clocks. I actually support this bill, but for folks getting crushed by rent, groceries, utility bills, and healthcare costs, is this really the best the majority can do? Is this really the most pressing issue before the American people at this moment? Then, there are three bills Republicans tried to bring up weeks ago, before their own chaos brought the House to a standstill. One is the Department of State funding bill that cuts funding for American diplomacy and foreign assistance. Another would block the use of a merchant code for gun stores, making it harder to flag suspicious purchasing patterns. Then, there is the so-called Take Care of America’s Veterans Act. That title is doing a lot of work. That bill expands some benefits by putting the disability compensation of future veterans on the chopping block, particularly veterans suffering from tinnitus and sleep apnea. In other words--get this--Republicans want disabled veterans to pick up the tab for other veterans’ benefits. That is just plain wrong. How hard is it to understand that we shouldn’t rob Private Peter to pay Sergeant Paul? The Veterans of Foreign Wars agrees. They were in the Committee on Rules last night. The VFW strongly opposes this bill on behalf of the veterans it represents, and it published a political cartoon to protest the cuts. What did the Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs do? He and other Republican Members sent a letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs, asking the agency to review the VFW’s accreditation. That accreditation is what allows the VFW to represent veterans before the VA and help them navigate the benefits system. Disagree with the cartoon, fine, say so, but do not use the Federal Government to threaten the VFW’s ability to help hundreds of thousands of vets. That sure as hell looks like retaliation to me. Veterans fought for the right to speak their minds. They should not be threatened by their own government for exercising it, but this is what happens when a majority becomes completely consumed by its own dysfunction. Meanwhile, Americans are working hard. They are doing everything they have been told that they are supposed to do. Yet, somehow, they can’t get ahead. What is this Republican majority doing about any of it? Next to nothing. One of the bipartisan things that we actually did do to try and bring down housing costs, Donald Trump refused to sign it. He let it become law without his signature because he was angry that the Senate had not passed his voter suppression bill. I mean, imagine that. Think about how screwed up all of that is. Families cannot afford to buy a home, rents keep climbing, and the President of the United States used a bipartisan housing bill as leverage in his fight over election lies. That tells us everything we need to know about this party’s priorities. They will move heaven and Earth to protect Donald Trump’s political power, but when it comes to making life more affordable for regular people, suddenly, they can’t find the time. They can’t be bothered. Republicans control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House. They control the Supreme Court. They still can barely keep the House floor open long enough to do the people’s work. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this chaos, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want everyone to vote against this bill. It pays for some veterans' benefits by cutting other benefits for veterans. Veterans groups oppose it, and it is wrong to make these cuts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman by saying that whatever good is in this veterans bill is offset by the bad. Basically, they are saying we are providing veterans’ benefits by cutting other veterans’ benefits. I mean, this is a shell game. That is why the VFW is furious, why they are pissed over this bill, why they have told their membership to contact Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to oppose it. If this were a tax cut for billionaires, my Republican friends don’t care about an offset. If it is an illegal war in Iran, they don’t care about offsets. When it comes to providing veterans’ benefits, all of a sudden, we have to find offsets. Those offsets that they have found to pay for this are by cutting other veterans’ benefits. That is unconscionable. That is wrong, and everybody should vote ``no’’ on that bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this rule and the bill to make daylight saving time permanent. We tried this in the 1970s, and it failed because children had to walk to school in the dark. Doctors warn that dark mornings harm our natural body clocks, our sleep, and our health. We should vote no.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern for his remarks, and I could not agree with him more. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule for many reasons, as expressed--the outrage about what is in here regarding veterans and their deserved, earned benefits. For my remarks, within it, I will speak to the Sunshine Protection Act. I worry that this bill is repeating the mistakes of the past and that it is being rushed to the floor without a robust committee process. We tried permanent daylight saving time during the 1970s oil crisis, and it lasted less than a year. The policy was popular until parents realized their children had to travel to school in darkness, armed with flashlights. After eight Florida children were killed in traffic accidents, the Governor called on Congress to end the 2-year experiment early. Over 50 years later, we are making the same mistake again. Please, let’s not. We are doing it with less information. The only hearing on time zones this Congress focused on tourism and golf courses. Members should have been able to speak and ask doctors how permanent daylight savings time would affect our health, safety, and well-being. My home State is Pennsylvania. We did just this in April. In a hearing, Dr. Indira Gurubhagavatula, director of the Sleep Medicine Fellowship at UPenn, explained that our body clocks rely on bright light when we wake up in the morning and dim light in the evening before we go to bed. Under this bill, Pennsylvanians would wake up in the darkness for months. In some parts of the State, over 100 sunrises would be after 8 a.m. Disruption in our natural sleep-wake cycle can reduce reaction time, alertness, and other measures of performance and safety. Sleep deprivation leads to a higher risk of serious health conditions like obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, depression, and some forms of cancer. This topic deserves robust debate, not a closed rule. Congresswoman Scanlon proposed an amendment for a permanent standard time to do just that, but it was promptly rejected. In closing, for the health and safety of our constituents, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no’’ on the rule.”

“Vote no on this procedural step so we can vote on restoring money to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Trump administration cut health programs that track food illnesses, and now thousands of Americans are sick from a food parasite.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to allow the House to take an up-or-down vote on an amendment to H.R. 8595, sponsored by Representative Schrier, which would reverse the cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that were imposed by the Trump administration that could have prevented the ongoing outbreak of cyclospora, a parasite that has already infected thousands of Americans. Last year, the Trump administration began illegally defunding Federal health and science agencies, firing scientists and researchers, and cutting programs that keep us healthy and safe. One of the programs that Trump cut was called FoodNet, and it helped Federal and State public officials monitor and prevent outbreaks for eight different foodborne illnesses, including cyclospora. Yet, after Trump and his DOGE goons got their hands on this lifesaving program, the government stopped monitoring cyclospora. That was stupid. It was dumb. Our country is now experiencing a full- blown outbreak of, you guessed it, cyclospora. For the sake of everyone’s health, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can reverse these dangerous cuts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rulli). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection.”

“The Trump administration has hurt our public health system by spreading misinformation and cutting the budget for the CDC. Because of these cuts, diseases like measles and cyclospora are spreading, and the government cannot properly track or stop them. We must fully restore the CDC so it can protect Americans from preventable illnesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, right now, our country is facing a public health crisis that has been created by the Trump administration. From misinformation about vaccines and lifesaving medicines to devastating cuts to critical research, along with political litmus tests, this administration is putting Americans in danger. Specifically, the cuts to the CDC have been disastrous. Our public health workforce has been attacked, and our ability to assess and respond to outbreaks has been decimated. We are now seeing the worst measles outbreak in decades, and the number of Americans affected by cyclospora is rapidly growing in over 30 States, and because of inadequate surveillance, that may just be the tip of the iceberg. Last year, the Trump administration changed the CDC’s FoodNet surveillance program, narrowing the number of pathogens under active surveillance, including cyclospora. The health and lives of thousands of Americans are on the line as they contract diseases that the CDC has helped us prevent for years and has screened for, for years, all because of the actions of this administration. If you are an American right now with measles, this CDC has failed you. As cyclospora spreads, the CDC is not meeting expectations. Communication has been sparse. Misinformation is rampant, and real information is lacking. HHS Secretary Kennedy, as a leader, has been completely absent in helping with any of it. As a doctor and a Member of Congress, I am outraged and deeply concerned. We need the CDC to be restored to its previous capacity, because you don’t really know how critical our public health service is and our CDC is until there is an outbreak and we can’t manage it. Every death from preventable illnesses should be laid at the Trump administration’s feet until these changes are undone.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →

“The Veterans of Foreign Wars opposes the cuts to veterans' disability benefits in this bill. I want their full statement included in the official record.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If there were people watching these proceedings and listening to my Republican friends, they may conclude that they sound a little defensive because they are, and they should be, especially on these veterans issues. The bottom line is that the VFW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, strongly opposes the disability benefit cuts that are included in the proposed Take Care of America’s Veterans Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the entire statement of the VFW and their strong, strong opposition to these cuts.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to vote on a bill to give veterans more benefits without cutting benefits for other veterans. Republicans say we cannot afford this, but they had no problem adding trillions of dollars to the debt for tax cuts and border security. We should listen to veterans groups and pass these benefits without any cuts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I trust the VFW more than I trust the Republican millionaires’ club that basically populate the United States Congress on their side in this Chamber. The VFW is saying we can do these benefits without punishing other veterans. I find it amusing because the gentlewoman says we need to find offsets. Well, she voted basically to increase the debt by $4.7 trillion in the big, ugly bill, adding $4.7 trillion to the debt. Included in that, by the way, is $70 billion, again, unpaid for, for ICE and CBP. Again, they have no problem with doing that. They have no problem with tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and now America’s trillionaire, and no problem with tax cuts for them that are not paid for, but when it comes to providing veterans’ benefits, all of a sudden they have a problem? By the way, just for the record, there is a discharge petition that has been filed to basically bring the Major Richard Star Act to the floor without cutting other benefits for veterans. Every Democrat is on that, every Democrat. We can bring this to the floor. We can have this debate. We can vote on providing veterans additional benefits without cutting other veterans’ benefits. That is the choice. When I hear these speeches about, oh, we really are doing all that we can, and we are on the side of veterans, again, the VFW opposes this strongly. They showed up in the Rules Committee, filled up the Rules Committee hearing room yesterday to show their protest, their outrage, over what Republicans were doing. Republicans don’t have to do this. Republicans could provide veterans with the benefits they need without robbing other benefits that veterans need. It is that simple. This is outrageous. This is outrageous what is going on, and people should not be fooled. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill to make daylight saving time permanent. It would make winter mornings dangerously dark for kids going to school and people going to work. Doctors also say it hurts our health and natural sleep patterns. We should end the time changes, but we should make standard time permanent instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I think we can all tell from the ensuing debate here, there are serious issues that this body needs to be wrestling with, but the Speaker has chosen to put on the floor this week H.R. 139, a bill that would make daylight saving time permanent. I think there is one thing everyone in this Chamber can agree on: Americans do not like changing their clocks twice a year. The big question isn’t whether we should ditch the switch; it is how. Unfortunately, the bill that the Speaker has chosen chooses the wrong solution by making daylight saving time permanent nationwide while denying States the right to enact permanent standard time if they so choose--not if, but when they discover that Congress made the wrong choice. We can all understand the appeal of an extra hour of sunlight in the summer, but permanent daylight saving time comes with serious health and safety concerns with even darker winter mornings. If this bill becomes law, winter mornings across the country are going to look very different. Millions of Americans will wake up during the winter months in complete darkness, with the Sun not rising until long after people get up and travel to school or work or have to go about their days. In much of upstate and northern New York, communities will not see the Sun rise until well after 8:30 a.m. In Michigan, it will be close to 9 before the Sun comes up. In parts of the Pacific Northwest, sunrise will be pushed even later than 9 a.m. In many parts of the country, children will be waiting for schoolbuses in darkness. Parents will be driving to work before sunrise. Morning commuters, students, and pedestrians will be starting their day in the dark, not because of the seasons, but because Congress decided to move the clock instead of following the Sun. We don’t have to speculate about what would happen under permanent daylight saving time. We already tried it. During the 1974 energy crisis, Congress made daylight saving time permanent in a failed attempt to save energy. It lasted less than a year. Families found themselves sending their kids to school in the dark, and there was a rash of fatal crashes involving schoolchildren. Communities raised serious safety concerns, and public support, which initially was quite strong, quickly collapsed. Congress repealed the policy within months. The science has only become clearer since then. Medical and scientific experts have endorsed the move to permanent standard time because permanent daylight saving time disrupts our natural circadian rhythms, the internal clocks that regulate when we sleep and wake. That disruption has been linked to higher rates of heart disease, stroke, chronic sleep deprivation, and other adverse health concerns. These bad outcomes are even more serious and long-lasting than the sleep deprivation, traffic accidents, and heart attacks that follow the twice-yearly changes that we currently have. I have also heard directly from my constituents. Like most Americans, they are ready to ditch the switch, but when I ask which permanent system they would prefer if they had to choose, the clear preference was for standard time. A Gallup poll last year found that Americans preferred permanent standard time to permanent daylight saving time by 2-to-1. That is why I have introduced the bipartisan Sunshine for Our Kids Act with Representative Pat Harrigan. Our bill would end the clock changes and make standard time the national default.”

“I want you to vote against this bill to make daylight saving time permanent. A change that affects everyone should be based on science, history, and people's health, especially children's health.”

“Importantly, it would also allow for States to adopt permanent daylight saving time through State law if they choose. If we are going to make a permanent change that affects every American, we should follow the science, learn from history, and prioritize Americans’ health, particularly that of our children. That is why I urge a ``no’’ vote on the rule and on H.R. 139.”

“I oppose this bill because many veterans groups oppose it. The bill cuts benefits for veterans. Instead, we should pass a bill that expands benefits without taking others away.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am glad the gentlewoman decided to go down this pathway because it is not only the Veterans of Foreign Wars that oppose this, but the Disabled American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Hispanic Veterans Leadership Alliance, the Black Veterans Project, Reserve Organization of America, Veterans Education Success, Student Veterans of America, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, Minority Veterans of America, Common Defense, Vet Voice Foundation, National Security Leaders for America, Swords to Plowshares, The Chamberlain Network, Unite for Veterans Coalition, Veterans for Common Sense, Veterans for Responsible Leadership. I could go on and on and on. The gentlewoman began by mentioning The American Legion. She may not know this, but as we speak, The American Legion in Texas, representing one of the largest memberships of The American Legion, has come out against this bill and is urging The American Legion nationally to now follow its lead and come out against this bill. The bottom line is, the more veterans’ organizations know that they are getting screwed, the more and more they are coming out against this bill. They are in favor of the Major Richard Star bill, which would provide and expand veterans’ benefits without taking away other veterans’ benefits. It is that simple. This is a bad bill and, quite frankly, the more people realize what is in this bill, the more they realize the cuts in this bill that will adversely affect the veterans’ community, the more and more people will come out against this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).”

“I oppose this bill. It stops credit card companies from tracking gun sales, which makes it harder to stop gun violence.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1181, which is in this Rules package. I want to talk about the bill because it is going to make it harder for us to fight gun violence in America. The majority is bringing to the floor a bill that would prevent credit card companies from coding the sale of firearms, meaning that if you buy a firearm from a gun manufacturer, from a gun seller, this Congress is saying we don’t want to track that, we don’t want to code it. We code everything, but we are not going to code this. It makes it even harder for us to fight gun violence in America. Some headlines from home: ``18-year-old dies after shooting near Westwood store.’’ ``Cincinnati Police Department investigating after shooting in Avondale.’’ ``1 shot in East Price Hill, search underway for suspect.’’ ``No arrests made after 3 weekend shootings in Greater Cincinnati.’’ These are all headlines from this weekend. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ciscomani). The time of the gentleman has expired.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 5 of 100

  Only 5% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →

“This is a terrible bill. It protects gun makers and sellers instead of protecting police and children from gun violence.”

“Mr. Speaker, the question then becomes: Why are they siding with gun manufacturers and not law enforcement? Why are they siding with the gun sellers and not our kids? It is a terrible bill based on a flawed ideology that somehow if you sell a gun, you are more important than the people who get shot by one.”

“Vote no on this rule. Republicans control Congress, but they are wasting time arguing and ignoring the high cost of living. Changing the clocks or passing voter rules will not lower the cost of rent, food, or healthcare. If Democrats were in charge, we would focus on making life more affordable for regular people.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this debate has made one thing very clear. Republicans are not the victims of this chaos. They are the perpetrators of this chaos. There is only one party that controls this floor and all three branches of government. Republicans set the agenda. Republicans write these awful rules. Republicans control the schedule, and Republicans have chosen to spend week after week fighting with one another while regular working people are getting squeezed. News flash to my Republican colleagues: The American people know the difference between working and pretending to work. They know that passing the same voter suppression bill again and again will not lower their rent. They know that stapling the SAVE Act onto yet another piece of legislation will not bring down the price of groceries. They know that threatening the VFW will not improve veterans’ care. They know that changing or not changing the clocks will not change what is in their bank account. Mr. Speaker, if Democrats were in the majority, we would begin every day with one simple question: How do we make life more affordable for working people in this country? We would work to build more housing. We would work to lower rents and stop giant Wall Street firms from bidding families out of the market. We would take on corporate consolidation and price gouging that are driving up the cost of food. We would lower health insurance premiums and prescription drug prices instead of ripping coverage away to pay for more billionaire tax breaks. We would make childcare more affordable. We would lower utility bills and end these stupid tariff taxes that show up in the price of nearly everything that people buy. In addition, we would stay here and we would keep working until the job was done. Now, I am not saying that every problem would be solved overnight, but we would put real solutions on this floor. We would allow debate. I mean, we don’t debate anything anymore. Most of the bills that come to this floor are completely closed, where nobody can offer an amendment, take it or leave it. I mean, you know, and when something did not pass, we would keep trying. We would keep trying until we got it right, until we helped people in this country. I mean, that is our job. That’s what we are supposed to do. When it comes to veterans, Democrats would fund the benefits that these veterans earned. We would not pit one generation of disabled veterans against another, and that is what my Republican colleagues are doing. It is really not only frustrating; it is unconscionable. That should not be a partisan statement, by the way, in terms of helping our veterans. That is basic decency. The American people deserve a Congress that is focused on affordability, not on Donald Trump’s long list of petty grievances and attempts to rehash old conspiracy theories from 6 years ago. They deserve a majority that understands that power is not about controlling the floor. It is about using the floor to help people, to improve the quality of life for the people that we represent. Republicans have had their chance. They blew it. They have wasted it. I urge my colleagues, vote ``no’’ on the previous question. Vote ``no’’ on this rule. Let us end the chaos and get back to work for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 4 of 100

  Only 4% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I am voting against this rule. I want to add an amendment to protect humanitarian aid for Gaza and the West Bank, support Palestinian security forces, and allow defensive weapons to protect Palestinians and Israelis. Since I cannot offer my amendment, I oppose this rule.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my intention to vote against H. Res. 1423, the rule for consideration of H.R. 8595, National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act. I oppose the resolution as written so that the House of Representatives can advance my amendment to Massie Amendment No. 8, printed therein. Should the Rules Committee meet again, I would offer an amendment to the Massie Amendment that would read, ``After page 1 1ine 6 insert the following: (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority, or the broader region, nor shall it be construed to prevent support of Palestinian Security Forces in the West Bank, and nor shall it be construed to prevent the delivery of defensive weapons for the protection of Palestinians and Israelis.’’ This would prevent the passage of the Massie Amendment from impacting the delivery of humanitarian aid and items critical for defense. However, without the opportunity to advance my amendment, I will oppose H. Res. 1423. The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An amendment to H. Res. 1423 offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts”